Hey :)

Just wondering what the utility of this tagging is?

The postcode and state could already be determined by looking at the administrative boundaries?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/116045298

Gday MapMeister!

Thanks for your contribution. :)

This laneway appears to be mapped pretty well, but I'd recommend one or two minor adjustments.

The name of the laneway appears to be a descriptive name of what it used to be, rather than the signposted, official name. It's ok to leave a road without a name tag, and instead use the description tag to provide more information.

I'd also suggest this is better suited as a alley, rather than an unclassified road. (Or maybe a footway, if it's too narrow?) The alley tag is pretty much an equivalent of what we would call a laneway in australian english.

Keep up the good work :)
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/116007596

G'day!

Thanks for your work in and around Carnegie :).

Just quickly, I noticed that you renamed the Australia Post shop to "Vacant (leased)". That's really useful information, but we generally try and keep the name of a shop to be the literal name, rather than a description. (ie: Bob's Milk Bar vs "Milk Bar"). In this case, it's okay to just remove the name and leave it blank.

If you haven't already, it'd be great to see you on the talk-au mailing list. :) https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Dian
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115876326

Hey Ben,

Thanks for the contributions. :)

A couple of points I wanted to raise:

You've added the name of the property to the driveways at way/1016437084 and 23895153. The name of the driveway isn't literally the name of the address osm.wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions. These are better placed in the description tags.
On a related note, you don't need to include the state, postal code and suburb in the address fields of each address; those are inherited by the boundaries that are already defined. :)

In this edit, you've attached some land use nodes to the highways using the same nodes. While that's not necessary wrong, it can make things much harder to keep up to date if the road geometry changes. The wiki explains the contract pretty well: osm.wiki/Land_use#1._Mapping_the_reality_on_the_ground. The fence lines in the area are well defined enough to make it possible to adjust the land use areas to the actual boundaries.

I've made some changes in line with what I said above, but please don't be offended. If you aren't already, it would be great to see you on the mailing list: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au.

Happy mapping .:)

Hello,

I'm changing Hangar Lane back to type alley as I believe that it best describes the nature of the highway, and because driveway2 is a deprecated tag without usage in Australia.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115461885

No worries, cheers mate. :)

I know was you mean about the rabbit hole! I created an account to make just a single edit…

Hey Mapillary,

The population and Wikipedia link for Croydon is already on the relation. I think doubling up with details on the node is unnecessary?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115027321

Hi,

You've added elements and altered geometry based on aerial imagery, but the edits are not correct.

The bend on Lakeside drive, and the realignment of Ross Gregory Drive have been completed since the imagery was taken. You can see the details of the change on the Grand Prix website

I have changed those back now.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113477031

I certainly won't argue with you regarding the congestion at the intersection! :)

I can appreciate that drivers approaching this intersection would need advance warning to be in the left-most lane. It's always busy at this intersection, but if you are trying to warn a driver to stay left, even where you've moved the node wouldn't be early enough; they really need to be in the left lane well before Olympic Boulevard!

I happened to raise this issue on the talk-au mailing list and was told that this method of moving the "split" node earlier was a common way of modelling intersections some time ago to achieve the "early turn warning", but newer tags such as destination, turn, change, etc are being used by routing software to give better directions, rather than us mappers trying to estimate where is most appropriate.

You can see the tags I've placed on Punt Road northbound (976172874) include lane-specific destinations, so that lane assistance within routing software should be able to tell well in advance which lane the driver should be in. :)

Thank you for the reply.

I understand your reasoning behind relocating the split, but I believe you have misapplied some of the logic from the wiki's you've quoted.

I'm referring to the Editing Standards and Conventions wiki page: osm.wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Divided_highways.

"A divided highway is any highway were traffic flows are physically separated by a barrier."

A solid white line is not enough to justify splitting the way: if it were then logically you could separate every lane where lane changes are prohibited. This legal separation is best represented with the change: key.

In regards to traffic lights, we are both aligned with the understanding that traffic lights do not represent the physical location of the lights. My objection to this modelling is because there is a single contiguous stop line for all lanes heading north, and both set of lights have both the turn arrows and green light. Even though the pedestrian crossing is further into the intersection, the traffic light for the left turn seems no different than a separate turn signal to turn right, which is modelled with a single node.

Lastly, I feel the use of the motorway_junction is inappropriate. Punt Road is not a motorway, and this turnoff is not a numbered or names junction that would justify usage of the tag. Again, we don't use junctions on every slip lane. There does seem to be some contradiction between motorway_junction and the rest of the wiki; it doesn't seem to have been updated as heavily as other pages. Notwithstanding the status of the wiki page, the hatched areas in motorways are significantly wider than this example; probably wide enough to arguably be "physically separated". The having here is maybe, a metre or so? I don't believe that's enough to justify a "motorway_junction" node.

I'm happy to discuss further. I'm aware this is comparatively minor and may seem like quibbling, but a lot of the network analysis tasks that use OSM data rely on consistent modelling that distinguishes between "legal" and "physical" separation.

Hey MapAbility.

I’m not sure I understand the reason for your change.

You have moved the point where left turn to Brunton splits further south, and then added another traffic light node?

There is only one set of traffic lights for that direction of travel, and it is before the traffic island.

Further, by moving the split point on Brunton further west, you’ve made the lanes tag much less accurate.

What was wrong with the previous modelling?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114697556

Thanks; appreciate the response.

I've been moving them to the relations when converting the nodes to label, rather than deleting them out of an abundance of caution. I'll continue the practice :)

Appreciate your contributions!

Hello. :)

Thanks for your contribution.

After a small discussion on the talk-au mailing list (https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-September/015042.html), it was generally agreed that tagging a suburb as a 'town' isn't correct.

I'm currently in the process of reverting a whole bunch of these town tags back to suburbs. You can see what it looks like in the south east where all the suburbs have been configured as nodes. I can change this node to a suburb and attach it as a label to the relation if that's easier for you? :)

I'd encourage you to join the mailing list (if you haven't already) as its a great place to talk and discuss changes with fellow mappers.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114314663

Hey TuanIfan,

I know this edit was ages ago, but I'm doing some updates and noticed a lot of the Chinese names you've added to suburbs.

Are these names transliterations, or does the Chinese community in Melbourne use these names in place of the English names?

Dian

Yes, thanks. :)
changeset/114019540

Fixed.

Hey Supt.

Firstly, I apologise for making you feel like you are being watched. It is not at all personal: like many editors, I use OSMCha to view recent change sets. Your name keeps popping up on the list because you’re so incredibly active, and because your edits quite often fail the OSMCha validation checks which highlight in red. These validation checks are automated (they look for crossing ways, really tight angles, etc), and while they don’t indicate that you made an error it causes your edits to stand out. I’d recommend OSMCha, generally, for editing and reviewing; I find it useful to see where I’ve made an error!

I missed that the previous edit was undoing an earlier change of yours; and I totally understand where you are coming from. I genuinely don’t know what the best approach is for these, which is why I’ve asked the question. (If the ways split, then it’s unclear whether a u-turn restriction is required as well)

I’d really encourage you to participate on the mailing list (https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-November/015306.html) I’m only one person, and I’m definitely not infallible. You do a lot of really good work, and your viewpoints are just as worthy of consideration and discussion.

Dian

Hey Supt,

In this edit you've seemed to reverted most of the changes made by another editor in changeset https://osmcha.org/changesets/113587813.

While there isn't a strong consensus, the wiki does seem to suggest that "roundabout flares" should me mapped as a single node, rather than splitting the way: junction=roundabout#Roundabout_Flares.

I've raised this on the talk-au mailing list now for their POV, but I'd suggest checking out the history of an element. :)
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113751342

Hey Supt,

In this edit you've seemed to reverted most of the changes made by another editor in changeset https://osmcha.org/changesets/113587813.

While there isn't a strong consensus, the wiki does seem to suggest that "roundabout flares" should me mapped as a single node, rather than splitting the way: junction=roundabout#Roundabout_Flares.

I've raised this on the talk-au mailing list now for their POV, but I'd suggest checking out the history of an element. :)
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113751342

Hi!

Why? These seem like transliterated names, which aren’t suitable for inclusion? osm.wiki/Names#Avoid_transliteration

Yes, I see that as well. Some of the other suburbs have names in other languages on just the node, or area; others have mismatching tags.

I’m happy if it’s an established standard, just would prefer it to be consistent with every suburb (in Melbourne at least).